October 5, 2012

Comments at Wonkette, after a post by Jesse Taylor mocking me for criticizing the University of Wisconsin for closing down central campus yesterday for an Obama rally which students could attend only if they went to the Obama campaign website, provided email addresses and phone numbers and clicked a button marked "I'm In."

Sexual remarks to tear down a woman? Imagine if conservatives did that to a liberal woman.

SECOND THOUGHTS: I wish I'd reacted a different way and, instead of focusing on insults to me, found a funnier place. When you put the phrase "I'm In" into a sexual context, as those commenters did, the metaphor becomes Obama as the unsatisfied girlfriend who can't even feel the man's love. Within this metaphor, the students who wanted tickets were forced to give what is now perceived at the sexually humiliating affirmation "I'm In."

Anyway, I know there's a big difference between getting slammed on big radio and in the comments to a popular blog.

But Fluke was arguing for birth control coverage (which introduced the issue of sex, covering the expenses of sexual activity, which set up Rush's satire), whereas I wasn't talking about sex at all. In this case, with me, because I'm a woman, they thought of using sex to try to hurt me.

That said, I propose a new Internet rule. You can't make a shoe-on-the-other foot argument (imagine if a liberal/white person/etc. had said that) or otherwise profess offense or outrage at an anonymous blog comment. On both sides we commenters say all sort's of crazy shit, it's just understood.

"On both sides we commenters say all sort's of crazy shit, it's just understood."

The difference between my comments section and the comments over there is that over there the commenters all take the cue from the blogger and jump on whatever train the blogger says to get on board. They go in the direction pointed and they make it nastier and stupider. They read the post as if it just said: Time for 1-minute hate against Althouse.

That's not what the comments around here are like. I would never begin with a post as stupid as Taylor's, but if I did something like that and seemed to identify a target, and my commenters thought they were picking up a cue from me and introduced sexual attacks on that target, depending on the details, I would delete.

I would feel bad if a satirical blog post of mine produced such stupidity in the comments. I expect better comments, and when a bad trend like that develops early on, the whole point of the post gets lost.

Althouse is right that when she says something, we are as likely to pile onto her as to play along with her - if not even more so.

In this case, she may not have outright called for the event to be cancelled, but she certainly indicated the idea of hosting it never should have been entertained in the first place, and she was right. It is absolutely inappropriate for a publicly funded university to host a partisan political rally.

I hope you don't really expect compassion from progressives. Unless you are directly aiding their cause, you are (1) not really a woman and (2) therefore can be dehumanized by their language and actions. Besides, questioning the wisdom of the UW poobahs obviously means your a wingnut conspiracy theorist (whether you posit one or not). I look forward the the University extending the same access and direct support to the Romney campaign.

From the Sandra Fluke situation, the line to "slut" is direct. Woman needs 3000% more for birth control than any other living being. Knee-jerk response: Jesus, lady, how many varsity football teams do you plan on taking on this year?

Now that knee-jerk response is both a.) too easy to be really clever and b.) imprecise, because a woman would have the same amount of birth control for 1 sex partner or 1000. But anyway, the response at least has a reasoning to it.

Whereas this, and the kind of vicious attacks rained down on Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin, are more like: I don't like what you say so I'm going to just put you down with the same putdown people have used against women for thousands of years. Which I think is vastly less excusable.

Or because they are guys, they thought of using sex 'cause it is a usual subject for 'em to make cracks about. And yes, I know jokes of this nature are taken a lot differently between guys&gals. It is crude and rude, but I don't think it was meant to be harmful/hurtful to you.

I'd try to explain guy-humor a tad more, but I'm just a regular worker and it has been suggested that folks-like-me shouldn't have the audacity to be joking with an academic....so I ain't sure how discussions about humor would fit in with those type of "Town vs Gown" dynamics.

Wonkette is a dim little tart. And by tart, I'm not implying anything about her sexual behavior. I'm talking about her potty mouth.

These women are so sad. They've managed to reduce feminism to this little box of salacious outbursts. Norman Mailer at his prime (ugh) couldn't have done more to denude the notion of female empowerment: worse, the thingies are doing it to themselves.

Fluck did say she spent $1000 a year on birth control. From what I can tell, the only birth control that expensive is 1,000 condomns. Fluck is spending a lot of time on her back, and she wants me to pay for it.

You seem to be making two points: (1) a blogger is responsible for the comments she generates, and (2) your blog is less mean-spirited than Wonkette.

That goes too far for me. It's true that your insults tend to be slightly more elliptical than Wonkette's, but you can be fairly mean-spirited yourself. And while there is usually a critical mass of interesting comments on your blog, a substantial number are about as stupid and nasty as it comes. You're not in a good position to blame other bloggers for things said by their commenters.

Again, that particular Wonkette commenter was a complete asshole. But if you're complaining about Wonkette's mean-spiritedness in general, and blaming them for the comment, that's essentially the pot calling the kettle black -- even if it's true that in this case the pot is more of a charcoal.

shiloh: your attention to this blog, in particular to your apparent fascination with Ann's post topics and commenters, is indicative of a severe lack of significance in your life.

You are not clever, insightful, original and certainly not interesting. Over the years there have been much better trolls than you, so you aren't even good at being bad. Perhaps you think you are being annoying, and that's a good way to get shots in.

ST, and you are amongst the worst of them. When I am kidding around, kidding in return isn't the problem. There have been numerous times I've been serious when arguing or discussing a point, and several male conservative commenters use sexual language, not just innuendo to bash me, to demean me.

Althouse has posted blog comments that deal with human sexuality, she sometimes says fuck, does that make it right to mock her using sexual innuendo, or even outright sexual harrasment, as you ST and a couple others have done to me here on this blog?

Althouse has posted blog comments that deal with human sexuality, she sometimes says fuck, does that make it right to mock her using sexual innuendo, or even outright sexual harrasment, as you ST and a couple others have done to me here on this blog?

Didn't see much of Shiloh recently. I wonder what happened. I watched MSNBC all night last night for laughs. They were basically administering fluids and painkillers for the faithful, so I guess Shiloh feels better today. Unfortunately, in the rematch, Romney is just gonna open up all those stitches again and raise up new swelling on the old bruises. But you can always go back to Maddow, Shults, and Co. who will sooth you, and tell you it doesn't matter, and it didn't really happen and that wasn't Romney, but some ringer impersonating him. Your guy just isn't good enough. This is gonna be painful for you.

a) Interesting that the commenter at Wonkette who left that is named "ProgressiveInga." Co-inky-dink?

b) Poor Inga/Allie does receive abuse here -- at the hands of an obvious moby, whoresofthe something-or-other. It would be interesting to see which liberal regular hides behind that screen name.

c) The author of the post didn't make this shitty remark, a commenter did; but did you notice how the author teed it up for him with the last line of his post? He knew exactly what he was doing with his "...because...I don't know" coy bullshit.

d) It shouldn't be surprising that leftist men hate women. Most men on the left are only progressive because they're such sorry beta-males that they have to politically grovel to easy hippie-chicks in order to get any action at all. And as a result these beta-males resent women for making them jump through such hoops.

I don't know what you girls are whining about. Most recently, I was told just the other day on here to "eat a dick". In fact, I bet if you tallied it up, the men on here get more sexual attacks than the women. You girls are just jealous. And yes, I think there are a lot of closet gays on here. My own closet has a mirror on the inside, so no need to come out.

But commenters here knew that but decided to make it a sexual request by me to them. I played along at times because it diffused the situation somewhat and was even a bit comical. BUT the ST decided to take it a step further and seriously sexually harrass.

You think you are justified in sexually harassing me and Lindsey because we may have uttered a comment that may have been of a sexual nature now and again?

"She asked for it" mentality. Right. A female commenter here , especially liberal ones , better damn well act like a Puritan, otherwise they are fair game for sexual harrassment, it seems.

I didn't complain before, because I didn't want to draw yet more attention to it, but now is just the right time. If it's wrong that they did the same thing to Althouse there, it's equally wrong that Althouse commenters do it to a liberal woman here on her blog.

In the case of Sandra Fluke there was an apology from Rush for some of his over-the-top comments. In your shoes, Professor Althouse, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any sort of apology from Wonkette or anyone else from the left side of the blogosphere.

Also unlike Fluke, I have a suspicion that if an apology was offered you would graciously accept it. Fluke, you might remember, rejected Rush's apology as "dubious and inadequate" when it was at the very least indubitable.

Pastafarain , I haven't even read Wonkette, and anyone that is using that moniker is most likely a Moby attempting to smear me and Althouse at the same time, my best guess is ... Wait for it... Baron Zemo, aka Trooper. Pretty low, I'd say. I recently stopped commenting on his blog because I discovered he was Trooper York. I guess he thinks he's paying me back.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, I'm glad Meade and Althouse knows what may be up with Baron Zemo. He does not comment in good faith.

Another comment ... "These fuckers work for a publicly funded college and appear to be too stupid to understand that their continued employment is likely dependent upon a Democratic administration. Sigh, I guess it would be my advice that get their resumes over to University of Phoenix. The are going to need lots of adjuncts to pick up the slack."

You see, Ann? You have to vote for Democrats because only Democrats will keep you employed. You are so ungrateful.

But commenters here knew that but decided to make it a sexual request by me to them. I played along at times

Bullshit. You made the reference numerous times, and used the resulting banter to lash out at people critical of you. You were playing a game when you brought it up, and you're playing one now.

You think you are justified in sexually harassing me and Lindsey because we may have uttered a comment that may have been of a sexual nature now and again?

I defy you to find one instance of me sexually harassing anyone on this blog, any other blog, or in meatspace. One.

"She asked for it" mentality.

You did ask for it when you baited whores - a moby - so you could play the victim and use the reult to criticize conservatives. Plenty of people have stood up for you, frankly more than you deserve considering your only contributions are insults and lies.

Inga: You think you are justified in sexually harassing me and Lindsey because we may have uttered a comment that may have been of a sexual nature now and again?

The problem with that position, Inga, is that you want it both ways (and I do not mean that as a sexual innuendo.) You can be ha-ha-ha raunchy when you want and then a tender flower when something offends you, or you want to act as if it does. I'm no fan of harassment, or even of raunchy talk, since it's usually so unoriginal. But people do reap what they sow, and not always in equal proportions.

It's really about taste, judgment, and class. Rush didn't have them vis-a-vis Fluke, and the commenter at Wonkette doesn't either.

But what it is NOT is some kind of trope for sexism. Either modern women are or are not too fragile and delicate to withstand kibitzing critics with poor taste, bad judgment, and lacking class. I'm betting they are, and you too.

Any mention by me of someone having a small dick is after a conservative male commenter brought it up. Since I was being accused of saying this when in fact I hadn't, I thought why not? I'm already being accused of it.

Even saying someone has a small dick doesn't rise (ahem) to the level of sexual insult conservative male commenters (ST) here, have engaged in in the past few days.

The difference between my comments section and the comments over there is that over there the commenters all take the cue from the blogger and jump on whatever train the blogger says to get on board. They go in the direction pointed and they make it nastier and stupider.

Very true. I've noticed the above on several liberal blogs. Posts are just an "It's time to gang up and pick on ....." No offense intended to Ann, as she draws in the commenters, but the comments here are what keep me coming back. There's generally some good discussion, upon which I'm always proven correct and morally superior to everyone.

The difference between my comments section and the comments over there is that over there the commenters all take the cue from the blogger and jump on whatever train the blogger says to get on board. They go in the direction pointed and they make it nastier and stupider. They read the post as if it just said: Time for 1-minute hate against [whoever.] That's not what the comments around here are like.

Inga said... Whoresoftheinternet is not a Moby, go read his blog which spews white Supremicist crap for several years now. If he were to be a Moby he went to great lengths to make it appear so.

Since this is my accusation and she responded to nothing else I wrote I conclude she's withdrawing her earlier accusation I sexually harassed her and/or Lindsey. Baseless accusations of sexual harassment reveal the accuser as an unprincipled liar willing to say anything regardless of its relationship to truth. This is a strong reason never to engage Inga's - or other dishonest person's - sexual banter. Inga initiated it as a hook, knowing at some point she'd be in position to make the accusation.

Are some commenters here not able to engage in a serious discussion/ debate without bringing in sex to insult?

Do some commenters here not have the ability to disengage themselves from a sexual banter type conversation to a serious discussion? If a woman has ever engaged in sexual banter does that now mean that is fair game to use her sexuality against her, to demean her in a serious conversation?

Some here want a woman to act like a Puritan at all times, otherwise " she asked for it" in every OTHER situation. THAT is sick and disgusting.

Futher, if you weren't addressing me in that part of your comment the only other possible meaning of "you" is Althouse commenters, which is even more ridiculous.

But run from your stupid accusations, it's what you're best at. Have you recalled why you accused Romney of taking a 77k tax credit for his horse? I presume you're giving up on the "tax credits for offshoring jobs" now that the President has proven himself a fool for making the same accusation. Do you want to make it official?

This microdickaphobia has got to stop! Sometimes it's just an optical allusion because you have really huge balls. But even if it's real, it's genetic like being gay or wearing shorts. Some compassion would be nice.

"leslynn said... @Marshall:I'm confused. Was "disgusting," what you said, or "disgusting" that she refused to engage you on it."

Revealing that leslyn supports baseless accusations of sexual harassment. I first wrote surprising, but considering it further I concluded it really isn't. The left's mantra is By Any Means Necessary, and they mean it.

This microdickaphobia has got to stop! Sometimes it's just an optical allusion because you have really huge balls. But even if it's real, it's genetic like being gay or wearing shorts. Some compassion would be nice.

shiloh obviously is such a dumbshit that he doesn't get the difference between blog OWNER egging commenters on to engage in name-calling vs people doing it on their own. I swear shiloh has pigshit in his ears.

When I am kidding around, kidding in return isn't the problem. There have been numerous times I've been serious when arguing or discussing a point, and several male conservative commenters use sexual language, not just innuendo to bash me, to demean me.

You can kid, others can not. So you're a hypocrit that hates being treated the way you treat others. Good luck with that, but it doesn't seem like you deserve any sympathy.

So why aren't you a conservative yet, Ann? Considering you work in an environment where people think like this and mull around the blogosphere were people think like this then do you think your cruel neutrality is worthy of this kind of merit? Or are you just going to remain in the murky middle and let them use you as a foil?

So why aren't you a conservative yet, Ann? Considering you work in an environment where people think like this and mull around the blogosphere were people think like this then do you think your cruel neutrality is worthy of this kind of merit? Or are you just going to remain in the murky middle and let them use you as a foil?

Methadras said...So why aren't you a conservative yet, Ann? Considering you work in an environment where people think like this and mull around the blogosphere were people think like this then do you think your cruel neutrality is worthy of this kind of merit? Or are you just going to remain in the murky middle and let them use you as a foil?

Yeah, when are you going to join up with rational, reasonable, sane people like Methadras?

It's incredibly powerful the "liberal" self-identity. Even when the label lost all meaning and actually became the antithesis of itself, it still feels much safer than conservative.

Admitting you're conservative is for a liberal like admitting you really aren't a nice person. Many (probably most) conservatives like me have no problem admitting we have liberal areas of our personal philosophy.

If you think about what Obama openly represents and actually does like having a mentor and pastor that, if he was white, would be considered a white supremacist. Then to see Obama on video blatantly race bating when he thought nobody would see it. How does she respond? To attack those who expose the racism in that. She voted for this guy knowing, but excusing the racism used to get him elected. ALL you have to do is reverse the color of his skin, and he would be offensive to her sensibilities as a liberal. A conservative is offended either way. She is no conservative.

leslyn said..."Althouse, no attribution to Alpha Liberal for finding this for you?"

Nope. I didn't get there that way. I got there through Site Meter, where I see which sites are sending me traffic. Wonkette was, unlike many Althouse haters, decent enough to link. I'm sure I sent him more traffic than he sent me, though, so it was a wise commercial choice. Wonkette is a very commercial enterprise. It doesn't represent any real human being's honest thoughts or artistic expression.

As for Alpha Liberal... haven't noticed him even being around recently.

The difference between my comments section and the comments over there is that over there the commenters all take the cue from the blogger and jump on whatever train the blogger says to get on board. They go in the direction pointed and they make it nastier and stupider.

DBQ, I only flounced into the shower, to get ready to go somewhere. Really DBQ, this idea of yours that you bring up repeatedly is getting ridiculous. I am gathering my forces to pit one group against another?

You dearie, never fail to flounce in a "bash Inga" session. You talk about junior high mentality and try to attribute it to me, but you are consistent with your assertion that there is some "war" happening and I am gathering forces.

I find it odd that you continue to focus so much attention my way, why don't you take your own advice and be the first to ignore me, that would be a welcome development. If not I will begin to think you have some odd unhealthy fixation with me. There, if that doesn't make want to you ignore me, nothing will, so flounce off dearie, that would make the Queen Bee happy.:)

Since you're back Inga have you recalled why you accused Romney of taking a 77k tax credit for his horse? I presume you're giving up on the "tax credits for offshoring jobs" now that the President has proven himself a fool for making the same accusation. Do you want to make it official?

Marshal, how many times now have I told you, no I won't engage you. I have no interest in discussing anything with you, I've repeated this at least three or four times now over the last few weeks Marshal.

Inga said... Marshal, how many times now have I told you, no I won't engage you. I have no interest in discussing anything with you, I've repeated this at least three or four times now over the last few weeks Marshal.

I don't expect you to anwer Inga, I expect you to run away. You pretend you're ready to debate and these side issues are such distractions, but the truth is you lie and when it's pointed out you run. Aren't you working on your thesis that because men in Afghanistan treat women poorly the American Christian Right want to turn American women into sexual slaves?